Re: What did Kerry do?

Originally posted by glowpop You have also made contentions that the President was too drunk to remember his ANG service. His one DUI arrest came in 1976 and he was honorably discharged in 1973.

He got caught once. Do you believe that was the only time he got behind the wheel while DUI? Dream on.

And if you so readily accept Bush's honorable discharge based upon documentation from military records, then why all the claims of inaccuracies of Kerry's military records as it relates to his decorations?

And. If Kerry had committed treason, why was he given an honorable discharge?

Both sets of records are from the same organization (DoD). Yet we are told Bush's records are above reproach, but Kerry's are inaccurate.

Re: sad for them, good for us

Originally posted by Farley The only defense a lib has for kerry is an attack on Rush Limbaugh

Actually I was doing nothing of the sort. I was responding to a remark about Al Gore being on crack which isn't true, with a statement of Rush Limbaugh being addicted to Oxycontnin, which is true.

But if you want to look up to Limbaugh it's none of my business. Personally I think he is hysterically funny. What is even funnier is how many conservative wackos look up to a person who is a great role model for:

Re: Re: sad for them, good for us

Actually I was doing nothing of the sort. I was responding to a remark about Al Gore being on crack which isn't true, with a statement of Rush Limbaugh being addicted to Oxycontnin, which is true.

But if you want to look up to Limbaugh it's none of my business. Personally I think he is hysterically funny. What is even funnier is how many conservative wackos look up to a person who is a great role model for:

Maybe those are conservative values and I just don't know about it. If so, maybe I'll change party affiliation.

Using this logic, I guess I can assume that your are an "anti-american". I can also say you wish for U.S. soldiers to die in Iraq. Why do I say this? Having witnessed the "greens" party convention here, in my hometown this summer, that is what I saw. Many of theses people held up signs hoping for U.S. failure in Iraq. The entire convention had no U.S. flags present. There were also many John Kerry signs present at their parade. This same "greens" party has been making a big push for their supporters to support Kerry rather than their own nominee. This would lead one to believe that the "greens" are one with the democrats. Therefore, what they beleive is what you beleive. Which means you are hoping for failure in Iraq, and the deaths of U.S. soldiers.I am only using the thought process you indicated for how you view conservatives. I would have to say that my view would be more accurate though, I saw hundreds of people promoting this thought process at this rally. You have listed only one person. Again, your logic, not mine.

sad for them, good for us

Originally posted by jasper45 I would have to say that my view would be more accurate though, I saw hundreds of people promoting this thought process at this rally. You have listed only one person. Again, your logic, not mine.

You saw hundreds. Yet Limbaugh claims to have 20,000,000 listeners. If I remember my number lines correctly, a million is more than a hundred. And not by just a little. By a factor of 10,000. So which one is more indicative of ideology of a given party?

I am only using the thought process you indicated for how you view conservatives. I would have to say that my view would be more accurate though, I saw hundreds of people promoting this thought process at this rally. You have listed only one person. Again, your logic, not mine.

Aligning our views with a few on the extreme left would be like our aligning your views with the KKK and the Aryan Nation; unfair. Yet, members of this forum continue to make baseless assumptions in this manner. We are no more "un-American" than anyone else. Our view of what America should ultimately be is obviously quite different than yours, but it is an American view, none-the-less. The reason my ignore list is chock full is because the hysterical neo-cons on this forum can't seem to debate without resorting to name-calling and childish behavior. I can't help it that the Republican candidate hid out in Texas while the Democratic candidate is a highly decorated combat veteran. One member even went as far as to compare Bush's posh life in the White House to Kerry's months in Vietnam...and not one of his neo-con cohorts here bothered to question it, so I must assume they agree with his rather hilarious position. You guys spout stuff like this and expect to be taken seriously? You post stupid attacks against Kerry on the forums on an almost daily basis; where are the attacks on Bush? You guys resort to name-calling and angry rants; yet, we on the other side of the debate do not. Of course, not everyone is like this; you guys know who you are. But, I don't blame you too much for being angry; if I were a right-wing, neo-con Republican, and my candidate (hid out in Texas) was up against a decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam War (Kerry), I'd be upset, too. Again, if the roles were reversed, the clamor from your side would have quite a different tune, I'd wager.

if I were a right-wing, neo-con Republican, and my candidate (hid out in Texas) was up against a decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam War (Kerry), I'd be upset, too.

What do we have to be upset about? Kerry's campaign is in the toilet, Bush is leading in almost every poll, CBS's attempt to further discredit the President is imploding as we speak, the economy is good, people are going back to work and we are engaged in a global conflict against ISLAMOFASCISM (I will always capitalize that word since no Liberal can utter it.)

All in all, I'd say it's pretty good to be a Conservative right now.

ThNozzleman,

You and scfire86 are nothing alike. He is standing by his position and I respect him for that. He has not cowered with his tail between his legs and ran like you do. You cannot back up your blather with anything but tired "Blood for Oil" rhetoric. I would gladly debate the gentleman from Southern California anyday over a Coward from Al Gore's home state anyday.

(Someone please Copy my Post into another post so he can see it)

Funny thing is, I have alot of issues with President Bush and his administration and am not afraid to point them out. Bush is wrong on Immigration, Bush is Wrong on Healthcare, Bush is wrong on the Environment and he is wrong on the United Nations Monitoring our election process.

Where are the Kool-Aid drinkers on Kerry and the things he is wrong on? Be Brave, Stand up and not be afraid to point out fallacies with your candidates! Not every Politician is right on Every Issue. I would be VERY afraid of people who were 100% in line with John Kerry.

Stop Making excuses for his ridiculous stances on some issues....

Another few Questions (and I want these answered without any Liberal Spinning, Side-stepping, Answering the Questions with other Questions or Ignorance of the Questions)

Why is it that unless France, Germany and Russia are operating with us, we are being "Unilateral?"

Do the 30 nations that are in partnership with us in the Iraq War not Count?

Why are Germany, France and Russia so damn important when it comes to Military Operations? I mean C'mon, I would not want a Frenchman in a foxhole with me....

Why do none of you address the United Nations and it's illegal practices in the "Oil for Food" programs?

How does the United States Benefit from being a member of the United Nations?

Re: Re: What did Kerry do?

He got caught once. Do you believe that was the only time he got behind the wheel while DUI? Dream on.

discharge based upon documentation from military records, then why all the claims of inaccuracies of Kerry's military records as it relates to his decorations?

And. If Kerry had committed treason, why waAnd if you so readily accept Bush's honorable s he given an honorable discharge?

Both sets of records are from the same organization (DoD). Yet we are told Bush's records are above reproach, but Kerry's are

inaccurate.

There are questions about Hanoi John's records because 200 plus decorated vets challenge the record. Hanoi John will not sign the form#180 to release all his records. The president already has, that is why they had to forge papers. For Hanoi John to be correct that means that 200 plus vets are lying. Not likely. I have no idea why he was not charged with treason, he sure as hell should have been. Regardless he is a traitor in my eyes and many other vet's eyes. The only ones that have questioned Pres. Bush's records are the hateful left trying to take the heat off of Hanoi John. A true hero doesn't have to keep reminding people that he is a hero. Remember your hero opened up the military debate because he has no record in the senate. He arrogantly thought no one would call him on it. WRONG!!! He should have been charged as a war criminal. He said he was himself. Why doesn't the press call him on this? I forgot there is no liberal press.

Re: Re: sad for them, good for us

Actually I was doing nothing of the sort. I was responding to a remark about Al Gore being on crack which isn't true, with a statement of Rush Limbaugh being addicted to Oxycontnin, which is true.

But if you want to look up to Limbaugh it's none of my business. Personally I think he is hysterically funny. What is even funnier is how many conservative wackos look up to a person who is a great role model for:

Maybe those are conservative values and I just don't know about it. If so, maybe I'll change party affiliation.

I went back and requoted exactly what it is you said in your post. In this post you made absolutely no mention of the "millions" of supporters or fans of Mr. Limbaugh. Your post was meant to lead one to think that one person was what you based your "viewpoint" on conservatives about. My response was simply to point out how ridiculous that was. I still maintain that claim. The only reason I made a "lump" comparison was to point out your "lump" comparison. Do I really believe that is what the "left" is all about? Hardly. Yet when a generalization is tossed out, this is what happens. I admit, I do share some political viewpoints as Mr. Limbaugh. Do I look to him as a role model? Absolutely not. Once again, my comparison and blanket statemment was not intended as an attack on your values, just trying to make a point.I also will not make any apologies for President Bush's military record. Nor will I criticize Mr. Kerry's. Both have done much more for this nation than I or many others ever have. You must note however, that President Bush did in fact state that Mr. Kerry's service in Viet nam was more heroic than his flying fighters. That is the President's own statement, and that's where he left it. Don't confuse his statements with the statement's of the swift vets. Who incidentally earned the right to be critical of of Mr. Kerry's service. They were there also. Mr. Kerry is the one who keeps this issue in the spot light. I just find it humerous how military service did not matter when Clinton was running against 2 WWII veterans. One who was wounded, with a permanent disability, and the other who was shot down. Now all of a sudden being President is dependant on military service? not only just service, but now we have to nit pick about who did more? Both men did far more than the thousands of cowards who ran to Canada.My sole dispute with Mr. Kerry's military record is what he did when he returned from Viet nam. Why is that? I read and listened to what the swift boat vets had to say. I have read what the other Vietnam veterans groups who are opposed to John Kerry had to say. Most specefically I listened to how our former POW's held in North Vietnam had to say. I also listened to what local Vietnam vet's had to say. One of whom was a POW held during time period in question. I feel he betrayed them. That is my opinion and I stand by it. I don't care what John Kerry did in Vietnam, he was there. I don't care what George Bush did in the National Guard he was there. I was in neither place. Neither of them dodged the draft, those scum were in Canada or Mexico, or Great Britain.ThNozzleman .... I agree with your statement about unfair comparison's with extremeist's viewpoints. I disagreed with scfire's post and his comparison of my viewpoints. I intended my post as an example only.

Originally posted by ThNozzleman
Aligning our views with a few on the extreme left would be like our aligning your views with the KKK and the Aryan Nation; unfair. Yet, members of this forum continue to make baseless assumptions in this manner. We are no more "un-American" than anyone else. Our view of what America should ultimately be is obviously quite different than yours, but it is an American view, none-the-less. The reason my ignore list is chock full is because the hysterical neo-cons on this forum can't seem to debate without resorting to name-calling and childish behavior. I can't help it that the Republican candidate hid out in Texas while the Democratic candidate is a highly decorated combat veteran. One member even went as far as to compare Bush's posh life in the White House to Kerry's months in Vietnam...and not one of his neo-con cohorts here bothered to question it, so I must assume they agree with his rather hilarious position. You guys spout stuff like this and expect to be taken seriously? You post stupid attacks against Kerry on the forums on an almost daily basis; where are the attacks on Bush? You guys resort to name-calling and angry rants; yet, we on the other side of the debate do not. Of course, not everyone is like this; you guys know who you are. But, I don't blame you too much for being angry; if I were a right-wing, neo-con Republican, and my candidate (hid out in Texas) was up against a decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam War (Kerry), I'd be upset, too. Again, if the roles were reversed, the clamor from your side would have quite a different tune, I'd wager.

Congratulations! That was a baseless personal attack against about 20 people at once!

Re: Re: sad for them, good for us

Actually I was doing nothing of the sort. I was responding to a remark about Al Gore being on crack which isn't true, with a statement of Rush Limbaugh being addicted to Oxycontnin, which is true.

But if you want to look up to Limbaugh it's none of my business. Personally I think he is hysterically funny. What is even funnier is how many conservative wackos look up to a person who is a great role model for:

Maybe those are conservative values and I just don't know about it. If so, maybe I'll change party affiliation.

Ya Know, SC, when PFD said you need reading comprehension courses he was on the mark. The comment was not that Al Gore was on crack. The comment was that his "HE BETRAYED US" rant was an imitiation of a pentecostal on crack.

Is Vietnam era service a priority? I guess it is if your guy claims to be a hero, to the exclusion of his senate track record. When Clinton was president, you libs said service didn't matter. Kerry himself made the point during both of clinton's campaigns. Any arguments you are making are in the hypocritical shoe on the other foot catagory.

ThNozzleman .... I agree with your statement about unfair comparison's with extremeist's viewpoints. I disagreed with scfire's post and his comparison of my viewpoints. I intended my post as an example only.

Understood. However, there are several here who routinely lump anyone who opposes Bush into the "pinko commie anti/un-American pro-terrorist" category. It's hogwash, and they know it. I do not mind spirited debate, but I'll be damned if I'll sit here and be called these stupid names when I can simply turn the hysterics off with a click of a button. The mob mentality of some of them makes me wonder if they are even capable of thinking for themselves. It's not much different from the seething responses I get from the same bunch when I post differing views on other subjects, such as the Pledge and the involvement of religion in government. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of them even showed up on my doorstep with torches and pitchforks! Of course, they now deem it some sort of twisted honor to be included on my ignore list. Oh, well; more power to them. They have the freedom to rant, and I have the freedom to turn them off.

Seriously, the Republicans made a stupid witch-hunt out of this whole ordeal. Are we to expect that no other U.S. president ever had a mistress/affair? I do fault Clinton with this; if I had been in his position, I would of said, "Hell, yes...I bonked her. So what?" But, that's just me. The Republicans were stupid for pursuing it in the first place, and Clinton was stupid for denying it.

Re: sad for them, good for us

Originally posted by Farley

Here is your chance to come clean. If these issues really matter, denounce Clinton for:
a. being a draft dodger

Same as 3 of Cheney's 5 (count 'em 5) deferments. Or the same as Phil Gramm's deferment, or the same Newt Gingrich's deferment. I could go on with conservatives who received educational deferments. But the list is too long.

b. lying under oath-and yes SC, he got disbarred for it.

Give you that one. But he was acquitted.

c. adultery on numerous occasions

Why is that my or your business? I thought conservatives believe that govt has no right to looking into your private life. I guess I'm wrong again.

d. addmitted drug use (but he didn't inhale, so that's ok)

And Bush admitted to USING cocaine. Big deal. Apparently conservatives only get their thongs in a twist when a liberal runs for office who has used illegal drugs. Better yet they slobber all over a conservative radio host who uses drugs illegally.

‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

Originally posted by ThNozzleman
Understood. However, there are several here who routinely lump anyone who opposes Bush into the "pinko commie anti/un-American pro-terrorist" category. It's hogwash, and they know it. I do not mind spirited debate, but I'll be damned if I'll sit here and be called these stupid names when I can simply turn the hysterics off with a click of a button. The mob mentality of some of them makes me wonder if they are even capable of thinking for themselves. It's not much different from the seething responses I get from the same bunch when I post differing views on other subjects, such as the Pledge and the involvement of religion in government. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of them even showed up on my doorstep with torches and pitchforks! Of course, they now deem it some sort of twisted honor to be included on my ignore list. Oh, well; more power to them. They have the freedom to rant, and I have the freedom to turn them off.

And I have the freedom to say that you are a coward. You cannot hold your own in a debate when you are overwhelmed with facts, so you take your ball and go home. You then are free to launch into personal attacks on everybody you disagree with. That is cowardice.

He reads them, how else would he ever so often pop in and grace us with his wisdom. Again here we go, nothing positive that Hanoi John brings to the table, only negative scavenger hunts against the Pres. Point that out and it is a personal attack, they say the same or worse and it is "honest and caring debate" Bull crap.

Lets use your logic against you.

He got caught once. Do you believe that was the only time he got behind the wheel while DUI? Dream on.

Maybe yes maybe no, but using your logic, if charges weren't brought against him then he did do it.

And if you so readily accept Bush's honorable discharge based upon documentation from military records, then why all the claims of inaccuracies of Kerry's military records as it relates to his decorations?

I haven't used that arguement at all. In fact I have stayed away from that whole arguement like the President. The President not only said that Kerry should be proud of his service, he has stated that his service was more heroic than his. Now I'll type this slowly so you can understand. The President has not attacked John Kerrys service and he has not made his service the center of his campaign. See, I didn't call you any names either.

And. If Kerry had committed treason, why was he given an honorable discharge?

Don't know but I don't know why OJ Simpson got off either. And it wasn't the fact that the gloves didn't fit

Both sets of records are from the same organization (DoD). Yet we are told Bush's records are above reproach, but Kerry's are inaccurate. [/QUOTE ]

Check what I have said all along. It isn't the fact that I question Kerrys service. Only the hippocracy that the Dems use to justify their personal attacks on a sitting President during a time of war. In addition the President has signed his form #180, and Kerry hasn't despite what he says.

Now if that isn't enough, lets read what a real American hero has to say to John Kerry:

"Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on.'" -- Sen. John Kerry

Dear John,

As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.

I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.

This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished."

Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger.

But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.

When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served --and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."

And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."

Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them endured because of you, John:

Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973.

Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.

Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.

John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.

One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?

Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist, host of the Fox News Channel's War Stories and founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.

If it isn't about his service then why does he keep bringing it up? Terry McCaulif has been making noise about Bushs ANG service since March and he hasn't yet made it stick. Why? Because there is nothing there, it's all "bull scatology".

Kerry has yet to give specifics about what he plans on doing. But ya know even if he did, I couldn't trust what he says because he takes so many positions on the same issue that who knows what he'd do. But then again maybe thats a hypothetical question and he doesn't answer hypothetical questions. (I know how much you like that smilie.)

For the past year, and most recently by CBS News, we have been deluged with reports that George W. Bush did not complete his agreed duty in the Texas Air National Guard. He was AWOL!

But even the records show that George Bush exceeded his obligations in the number of flight hours required from 1968-1973, and only came into question during the last 18 months of his agreed obligation when he requested and received official permission to transfer to an Alabama unit and then enroll in an MBA program at Harvard. His obligation was for six years from May, 1968, to May, 1974. Beginning in 1972 the Air National Guard and the Air Force was beginning to have a glut of pilots while bringing people back from Viet Nam. many pilots were allowed to leave early because of this glut. The F-102 Delta Dagger was going to be taken out of service because of a poor safety record (over 875 produced, 265 crashes over an approximate 16 year run)and replaced with the F101B by early 1975. He received an educational release from his obligation eight months early and received an Honorable Discharge in October, 1973.

While leftists question where George Bush was during the final year of his obligation, they and the press ignore completely the similar obligations of John Kerry. John Kerry enlisted in the Navy and signed an Officer Candidate Agreement on February 18, 1966. This agreement called for the candidate to meet the following requirements.

Par 3 - to serve a total period of 6 years in the Naval Reserve of the United States, including active and inactive duty.

Par 4 - agrees that on completion of active duty, he will remain for Service in the Ready Reserve for a period which when added to his active duty will total 5 years. Upon completion of 5 years of satisfactory service on active duty and in the Ready Reserve he will be eligible to transfer to the Standby Reserve for the remaining portion of his service obligation.

Par 5 - the candidate understands that the provisions of law require satisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve, unless relieved of such participation by competent authority or as provided by law. Such participation may be satisfied annually by not less 48 drills and not more than 17days active duty for training.

Lt. John Forbes Kerry was released from active duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve on January 3, 1970. He wasn’t transferred to inactive standby status until July 1, 1972, then Honorably Discharged on February 16, 1978. Where was Lt. Kerry during the 18 months from 1970 to 1972? Did he attend the required drills and active duty that he agreed to? Was he AWOL or did he violate his agreed commitment on accepting a commission as an officer in the service of the United States.

We do know that he made an unauthorized trip to Paris in June,1970 to meet with Madam Win Thi Binh, the foreign minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Vietnam (PRG), which is the political wing of the Vietcong, and with representatives of Hanoi who were in Paris for the peace talks while still an officer in the Naval Reserves--in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953.

That meeting while still an officer in the Naval Reserves and Kerry's subsequent coddling of communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article three, Section three, which defines treason as ''giving aid and comfort'' to the enemy in time of warfare. In April, 1971, he went before the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs while still an officer in the Naval Reserves claiming all kinds of atrocities on the part of his fellow comrades in arms in further violation of Article 3.

While John Kerry’s hero status is in question in the United States he is still considered a hero in Vietnam where his picture is in a place of honor in the Vietnam War Museum in Ho Chi Minh City. He is honored for leading the Vietnam Veterans against the war and helping the communists bring the war to conclusion.

It is time we ask where was John Kerry during his reserve commitment. Was he AWOL as his supporters want to say is the case with George Bush? And did he violate the Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions. and the United States Constitution.

Originally posted by FireLt1951 Par 3 - to serve a total period of 6 years in the Naval Reserve of the United States, including active and inactive duty.

I was inactive reserve for almost two years. The only requirement I had (as explained at seperation from active duty) was to notify the DoD of any change of addresses. Which I did. Unless things were different a mere six years earlier, I would wager those were the only training requirements of Kerry also.

Since the author of this tome (since you have no attribution) may not be aware of the details of what is involved in being classified inactive reserve it pretty much blows it out of the water. Or in Bush's case, shoots it out of the sky.

We've pretty much worn out the treason charge. Neither the civil or UCMJ justice system saw it that way. Yet somehow all these so called legal beagles see it the opposite. The Supreme Court in numerous rulings have been pretty explicit as to what constitutes treason and Kerry's actions do not.

The rest of it is debatable since neither I or the author knows the obligations of the ANG. I do know my cousin (Ca NG 1966 -1972) was told that if he failed to meet requirements as it related to training and attendance he would be activated and possibly sent to Vietnam. Not being the son of influential billionaires he didn't miss his requirements.

I'm unaware of your age but what must realized are the times we found ourselves in. It was not popular to go after anti-war personnel and/or draft dodgers after 1970. This is no doubt the reason that Hanoi Johnny never faced charges. It would have been an uphill battle. Unless you lived during those dark days, I doubt you'll understand.

Kerry didn't go on inactive reserve status until July "72". Before that he was active reserve status. I understand inactive reserve status as I spent 3 years 5 months in that status after coming home from Viet Nam and given a 120 day early out for staying 16 months in the Nam. So don't sit there and tell me I don't understand. I also understand active reserve status as I spent 3 years 1981-1984 in the Coast Guard Reserve. So it looks as though your water leaking.

I could care less what Kerry did or did not do in Viet Nam or his medals. I care about what he and his VVAW friends did upon his return. Unless you went through the distain and hatred that was heaped upon us when we returned, you'll never really understand the deep feelings that the majority of us feel. Had Hanoi Johnnoy not made Viet Nam a centerpiece of his campaign, this probably wouldn't be as big a deal. Personally, I will never forgive Kerry for his actions. Kerry is not one of my Band Of Brothers and never will be. I won't go any deeper now as I'm probably going t say something that I really shouldn't.

Originally posted by FireLt1951 It was not popular to go after anti-war personnel and/or draft dodgers after 1970. This is no doubt the reason that Hanoi Johnny never faced charges. It would have been an uphill battle. Unless you lived during those dark days, I doubt you'll understand.

I did live during those days. And the reason Kerry, like others didn't face charges is there were no charges to bring.

Treason has a very narrow description as defined by the Constitution and Supreme Court. Kerry's actions did not fit the criteria.

With all that has gone on, someone in opposition to Kerry would have come forward and reinforced your case. Yet no one has. Other than these rambling missives.

Here's one for you Lt.

"Bush spoke to members of the National Guard at a convention in Las Vegas. A lot of those guys were really excited to see him. A lot of them have been waiting since the early 70s to see him, for him to show up."
--Jay Leno